Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the report by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the review of commonage lands and framework management plans. The report was published in mid-2013 and things have moved along significantly since then.

The previous policy was to de-stock commonages and prevent damage. The thinking was that if animals were taken off commonages to stop over-grazing, things would correct themselves. However, following the evidence heard at the joint committee, we have now had to reverse that policy. In many commonage areas land is now being under-grazed and, thus, the policy was not having the desired impact. The idea of the commonage plan now is to graze such lands properly in order to maintain them without their being either under- or over-grazed. That is the outcome that everybody wants to achieve.

Since the rural development plan was published, there has been a huge backlash from hill farmers who are concerned about the impact it will have both on them and on commonage farmers. There may be lessons for the joint committee concerning who gave evidence to it before the report was drafted. We should re-examine that matter. Hill farmers across the country feel that the IFA did not represent their views or their case in making submissions about the new rural development plan. The joint committee needs to consider whether we can broaden the scope of whom we talk to and obtain evidence from in order to inform our decisions.

A number of issues that arose over the summer were dealt with by some of the evidence to the joint committee, particularly concerning collective agreements, which have sparked so much controversy. Potential problems were identified by many hill farmers whereby the failure of one party to fulfil an obligation can result in other parties having to go to the trouble or expense of remedying the outstanding matter themselves. Where a conditional payment is prejudiced by the actions of a minority of shareholders, the entire group can face a collective sanction.

Many farmers are concerned about the 50% requirement to enter the GLAS scheme with commonage land. Having met with the implementation committee, the hill farmers' action group felt it had achieved a resolution of this issue. However, it was quite worrying to read that farmers walked out of a meeting in Maam Cross on Tuesday or Wednesday night because they felt the Department was rowing back on what they had agreed with the implementation committee. I ask the Minister to clarify that matter to ensure that farmers are fully aware of what has been agreed. In that way, there will be no misunderstanding. Otherwise it will raise difficult problems for farmers in the next year or two in accessing the GLAS and GLAS plus schemes, as well as sorting out single farm payments.

The implications and future impact of decisions on commonages can be quite technical and complicated. The Minister says that 50% of farmers whose livestock are actively grazing commonage land can enter the GLAS scheme. If they do not reach the 50% figure they can approach the implementation body, but what does that mean? What will the outworkings of that be? If farmers seek clarification on this matter from the implementation body, will they be able to participate because they have made an effort to attain the 50% figure, although it is out of their control?

See this speech in context